Comments on: Albrechtsen defends the indefensible: executive salaries

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The two things that Janet always defends are democracy and property rights of which the ability of the majority owners of a company to set a cap on executive compensation would seem to combine the two. And yet her steely resolve crumbles when this might lead to a diminuation in her own family’s wealth as her husband appears to be precisely the sort of overpaid executive that shareholders seek to control.

By: Alison Williams

Alison Williams — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What Janet also conveniently chooses to ignore is that movie stars’ stratospheric pay rises - and falls - with their ability to sell their product. One they’re commanding millions per movie, they’re only allowed a few flops before their pay will drop steeply. The same doesn’t seem to apply to senior executives who structure their packages so that they still get golden parachutes even when their companies’ performance is hardly stellar. And it’s this culture of self-reward regardless of real performance which has most Australians sick to their stomaches.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I never thought I'd find myself defending Janet Albrechtsen, but here I go.

To say that Albrechtsen is defending the indefensible is itself indefensible. I read her piece this morning and thought she made a lot of sense. She appeared to me to be attacking cheap politics by the Liberal Party and arguing against their particular [very silly] prescription for dealing with executive salaries.
Your correspondent needs to get his mind beyond binary thinking and look carefully at the range of possible policies in this area.

By: PedroWilsoni

PedroWilsoni — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

You are spot on, Bob Smith.

I teased out - from the blog's comments - an indicator of how the the Liberals are continuing to bleed their base, and why they will continue tanking in the polls:

Mike Taylor
Wed 04 Mar 09 (05:39pm)

Spot on Janet, as usual, and good on you for fair criticism of the Liberals. Under Turnbull the Libs appear to be forsaking true blue values and trying to out-green the Greens and out-left Labor. How I long for the strong man of principle, John Howard. How we need him now. Abbot has now blown it for me. Costello appears to be our only hope.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The only argument which really matters in the defence of executive pay is whether the organisations lead by the hyper-remunerated do better than those led by the merely seven-figured. If not, then there is no reason to pay the amounts typical at the moment and, in fact, it is a criminal misallocation of company resources. The comparison between key grips and stars is, as is usual with Albretchsen, entirely spurious. Stars get paid millions because they make a movie profitable. Applying that simple standard to CEOs would be a considerable improvement.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There she goes again…

Off the Planet Janet…….Australia’s equal most dilatory newspaper commentator…… why doesn’t she join the West Australian & be done with it

By: Greg Barns

Greg Barns — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

John O’Sullivan, Janet Albrechtsen’s husband, is a handsomely paid senior executive, which might colour Janet’s bizarre views. He was General Counsel at the Commonwealth Bank for a number of years before going to head Investment Banking in Australia for Credit Suisse in late 2007.

On September 13 2007 Stephen Mayne, writing in Crikey, revealed, “The latest Commonwealth Bank annual report (pages 39-45) reveals John O’Sullivan collected $2.4 million in 2006-07 for his work as chief legal officer. Whilst Janet’s husband does owe the bank $1.5 million, his 114,000 shares are worth a tidy $6.27 million.”